From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 10:15:08 MDT
> > You are positing that all the "really good people"
> > basically agree with the SIAI perspective.
> Yes, for the same reason that I posit all the really good
> physicists accept general relativity as the starting point
> for further work. If you think that AI is an area where
> different points of view can be equally good, you have already failed.
AI is at a far more primitive stage than gravitational physics right
now. If you're suggesting that Eliezer's ideas about AI are currently
well-demonstrated to a level comparable to that of Einstein's general
relativity theory, I think you're badly wrong.
There may one day be a theory of intelligent systems that is as rigorous
and well-documented and empirically proven as current physics theories
like general relativity. When there is such a theory, certainly, I will
accept it to the same degree that I accept current physics theories (not
absolutely, but with a high degree of respect).
When a science is at a primitive stage, it is foolish to assess a
scientist's quality by whether or not they agree with one or another
competing speculative perspective.
Even once AI science is far more advanced, there may still be many
different ways of creating AI's, and many different ways of creating
Friendly AI's. AI science, at its present primitive stage, certainly
doesn't rule this out.
If we're lucky, there will be a unified theory of AI that tells us which
ways of creating AI will be successful at creating intelligence, which
ways will be successful at creating FAI, etc.
I see no evidence that Eliezer or anyone else possesses a rigorous,
demonstrated unified theory of this nature, at the present time.
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT